[U-Boot] [PATCH v3 5/6] da850/omap-l138: davinci_emac: Suppress auto negotiation if needed

Tom Rini
2012-09-10T16:08:09Z

On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 11:01 PM, <Bastian.Ruppert@sewerin.de> wrote:
> Hello,
>
>> Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v3 5/6] da850/omap-l138: davinci_emac: Suppress
>> auto negotiation if needed
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 1:08 AM, Prabhakar Lad
>> <prabhakar.csengg@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hi Bastian,
>> >
>> > Thanks for the patch.
>> >
>> > On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Bastian Ruppert
>> > <Bastian.Ruppert@sewerin.de> wrote:
>> >> From this commit id: b78375a806ed04eb22b963255cfdef8df702de47 auto
>> >> negotiation is enabled in RMII mode. Some boards based on da850 need
>> >> to suppress this procedure.
>> >>
>> >> CC: Rajashekhara, Sudhakar <sudhakar.raj@ti.com>
>> >> CC: Lad, Prabhakar <prabhakar.lad@ti.com>
>> >> CC: Hadli, Manjunath <manjunath.hadli@ti.com>
>> >> CC: sbabic at denx.de
>> >> Acked-by: Stefano Babic <sbabic@denx.de>
>> >> CC: Tom Rini <trini@ti.com>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Bastian Ruppert <Bastian.Ruppert@Sewerin.de>
>> >> ---
>> >> drivers/net/davinci_emac.c | 3 ++-
>> >> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/davinci_emac.c b/drivers/net/davinci_emac.c
>> >> index b2516d1..fe988d7 100644
>> >> --- a/drivers/net/davinci_emac.c
>> >> +++ b/drivers/net/davinci_emac.c
>> >> @@ -897,7 +897,8 @@ int davinci_emac_initialize(void)
>> >> }
>> >>
>> >> #if defined(CONFIG_DRIVER_TI_EMAC_USE_RMII) && \
>> >> - defined(CONFIG_MACH_DAVINCI_DA850_EVM)
>> >> + defined(CONFIG_MACH_DAVINCI_DA850_EVM) && \
>> >> + !defined(CONFIG_DRIVER_TI_EMAC_RMII_NONEG)
>> > instead of CONFIG_DRIVER_TI_EMAC_RMII_NONEG why not have
>> > CONFIG_DRIVER_TI_EMAC_RMII_AUTO_NEGOTIATE ?
>>
>> Good idea, opt-in is better than opt-out, please make it so.
>>
>
> i can see what you mean! But in this case i would like to answer back.
> Normally, one almost certainly use the auto negotiation. On the ea20
> board there is a seldom case where auto negotiation is counterproductive.
> In my opinion the feature "disable it" is opt-in.
> So i would like to leave it as it is.

I will defer to Prabhakar for a final answer on this.

--
Tom